Imágenes de páginas

called gods is totally inadmissible ; for, we find no authority in the scriptures for such an assertion : moreover had there been any authority declaring Moses and others to have been types of Jesus, it could not depreciate the honor which scripture confers upon them by the application of the terms 6 gods" and “sons of God” to them, any more than the fact that Christ was the Saviour of mankind in consequence of his having been of the seed of Abraham* and house of David, as well as the rod of the 'stem of Jesset, could lower the digo nity of the Messiah, or could exalt the rank of Abraham or of David above Christ.

| Such an apology as ascribes birth, growth and death, to the material body of Christ, and immortality and divinity to his spirit, iş equally applicable to those Israelites that are termed gods.

The second question of the Editor is “ to whose nature is their's (Israel's) superior? only to that of the brutes !" In answer to which I refer the Editor to the passages already cited to wit, Psalm LXXXII. 6. Exod. IV. 22. XIX. 5 and 6. as well as to Exod. XXV. 8. “God was dwelling among them,” Dent VII.6.

* Genesis XXII. 18.

+ Isaiah XI, d.


" that he has chosen them from all the nations." X. 15. “ He loved them, he chosed them only". XIV. 1. “they are the sons of God” and to numerous passages of a similar description, whence the Editor may judge whether Israel was superior to the brutes only or to the rest of mankind. The third question is “ if other gods die like men, must Jehovah, who made heaven and earth whose throne is for ever”? My answer must be in the negative, because Jehovah is not a a man-god that shall die; but he, as the God of all gods and the Lord of lords, must regulate the death and birth of those who are figuratively called gods, while he himself is immutable. Deut. X. 17.“ Je hovah your God is God of gods and Lord of lords” John XX. 17. "To my God and your God” Psalm XLV. 8. God thy God hath anointed thee” Let us now again refer to the context of John X. 34. In v. 33, the Jews assign it as the reason for their attempting to stone Jesus that he made himself equal to God by* calling himself the son of God, as they supposed in a real sense, which was according to their law blasphemy: Jesus therefore pointed out to them in v. 34. that even the term "god" is found figuratively applied to the chiefs


* As is evident from the reply of Jesus v. 36. “ Thou blasphemes!, because I said I am the son of God."..

of Israel in scripture williont meaning to imply thereby their equality with God; in v. 35. he reminds them of their applying, according to the scriptures, the same divine term to those chiefs; and lastly he shews their inconsistency in call. ing their chiefs gods and at the same time rejecting Christ's declaration of his being the son of God, in the same metaphorical sense, as being " sanctified” and “sent” by God. Is not this argument used by Jesus an evident disavowal of his own deity and mani. festation of his having called himself “the son of God” only in a metaphorical sense? I am sorry to observe that the Editor seems to have bestowed little or no reflection upon these texts.

In answer to my observation on the attempt of othodox Christians to prove the deity of Jesus from 1 Cor. X. 9. “Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempteri," the Editor quotes first an observation of my owil, to wit,“ how far cannot prejudice carry away men of sense? Are we vot all in common with Jesus liable to be tempted both by men and Satan? Can the liability to temptation common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, 'and all mankind, be of any avail to prove the divinity and unity of those respective subjects of temp

tation?; he then declares that I was not correct in the statement of my opponent's doctrine on this subject, and denies any one's “ having atttemped to prove the deity of Christ merely from his being tempted.” To shew theaccuracy of my statement however, I beg to refer the Editor to Mr. Jones's work on the nature of Christ. The Editor lastly asserts that “it is the apostle's declaring that Christ was he who was tempted in the wilderness, and hence the most high God described by the Psalmist as tempted, which is here adduced.” But I do not find in the verse in question nor in any preced. ing or following verse “the apostle declaring that Christ was he who was tempted by Israel in the wilderness.” If the Editor has inet with such a declaration elsewhere, he should first point it out and then build his argument upon it. But unless he first shew that being tempted by the devil and being tempted by Israel mean the same thing, I cannot adinit any relation between the declaration of the apostles and that of the Psalmist.

Relative to Psalm CX. “ the Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand till I nake thine enemies thy footstool," I observed, in my Second Appeal (page 122.) that this passage is simply applied to the Messiah, ma


nifesting that the victory gained by him over his enemies was entirely owing to the influence of God!" To this the Editor replies " after the son had bumbled himself so as to assume our nature and be appointed to the combat, it was not to be expected that the father would forsake him. But that Jesus had no might of his own, which our author would faia prove, is not a fact.” Is it not most strange that the son, whom the Editor considers the immutable, almighty God, should be supposed by him a. gain to have humbled himself and to have been appointed by another to a combat in which that other assisted him to obtain success? Are not these two ideas quite incompatible with each other? If such positive disavowal of his own power by Jesus himself as “I can of mine ownself do nothing,'' 6. all that the faiher giveth shall come to me,” has failed to convince the Editor that Jesus had no power of his own, no argument of mine or of any other human being can be expected to make an impression upon him.

The Editor afterwards endeavours to prove the omnipotence of Jesus by quoting Isaiah LXIII. 5. “Mine own 'arm brought salva. tion unto me” aud Rev. I. 8. “I am als pha and omega; the buginning and the end

« AnteriorContinuar »